Backchannels, Conquest, and the Collapse of Strategic Reason

Why Rewarding Aggression Has Always Failed — and Is Failing Again.

Anne Applebaum said yesterday that Trump's US non-government Russian/Ukrainian war "negotiators" are acting very, "Russian", and THAT is NOT a good thing. They are acting like their efforts are there to personally profit them and Donald Trump, but not America, not Europe and NOT Ukraine.

Anne Applebaum said yesterday that the Trump team’s non-government, unofficial Russia/Ukraine-war “negotiators” — especially Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — are behaving in a way that looks “very Russian”: personalized, deal-driven, and oriented toward private benefit and side business rather than a rules-based settlement that protects Ukraine, Europe, or U.S. strategic interests.

In Applebaum’s framing, the “Russian” part is that Witkoff’s channel intersects with Kremlin-linked financial actors like Kirill Dmitriev (head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund), where “peace” talk and business talk blur the way they often do in kleptocratic systems.

(Other figures reported as part of Trump’s unconventional circle around these efforts include Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, alongside formal officials like Marco Rubio.)

In moments of global crisis, history rarely turns on good intentions. It turns on whether leaders understand how power actually works over time. The war in Ukraine has become one such moment — not only because of Russian aggression, but because of how some Western political actors propose responding to it.

A growing argument claims that peace can be achieved by sidelining institutions, bypassing formal diplomacy, and offering inducements to end the war — even if that means legitimizing territorial conquest. This argument presents itself as pragmatic, anti-war, and financially rational.

History, economics, and security analysis say otherwise.

---

1. The Nature of the War: What Is Actually Being Tested

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not a border dispute or a misunderstanding. It is a revisionist war of conquest — an attempt to erase a sovereign state’s autonomy and redraw borders by force.

This places Vladimir Putin in a familiar historical category:

• A leader claiming historical grievance

• Rejecting post-war borders and treaties

• Framing aggression as defensive necessity

• Treating sovereignty as conditional

This is not unique to Russia, nor is it ideological. It is a power strategy that depends on one thing above all else: whether conquest pays.

---

2. Backchannel Diplomacy: When States Become Personal Projects

One of the most troubling features of recent proposals is the use — or advocacy — of non-government intermediaries to negotiate with Russia over Ukraine’s future.

This matters because it shifts diplomacy:

• from constitutional authority to personal influence

• from enforceable commitments to informal assurances

• from state responsibility to plausible deniability

In democratic systems, diplomacy is institutional for a reason. Institutions create:

• continuity across administrations

• accountability to law and allies

• predictability for deterrence

Personalized diplomacy does the opposite. It tells adversaries that:

• institutions can be bypassed

• commitments depend on personalities

• pressure should be applied privately, not publicly

That is not realism. It is state hollowing.

---

3. The “Deal” Fallacy: Why the Numbers Don’t Add Up

A recurring claim is that Ukraine could or should be induced to concede territory in exchange for enormous financial compensation — sometimes framed in figures so large they exceed any plausible enforcement mechanism.

This collapses under basic scrutiny.

Russia lacks the capacity to fund such outcomes

Russia is:

• under long-term sanctions

• operating a war-strained economy

• depleting reserves to sustain the conflict

Promises of vast payments are not leverage against Russia. They are pressure on Ukraine, disguised as arithmetic.

There is no enforcement mechanism

Authoritarian regimes do not reliably honor post-concession obligations. History shows that once territorial objectives are secured, compliance drops sharply — especially when enforcement would require renewed confrontation.

A deal without enforcement is not diplomacy. It is surrender with paperwork.

---

4. Why Conquest Cannot Be “Priced In”

The core strategic error behind these proposals is the belief that conquest can be neutralized by compensation.

It cannot.

When territorial aggression succeeds:

• future aggression becomes cheaper

• deterrence becomes more expensive

• borders everywhere become provisional

This is not a moral claim. It is a cost-curve reality. Every time conquest is rewarded, the price of stopping the next invasion increases.

This was demonstrated repeatedly in the 20th century, most catastrophically during World War II, when early concessions did not prevent war — they expanded it.

---

5. The Strategic Payoff of Supporting Ukraine

From a strictly national-interest perspective, U.S. and allied support for Ukraine has produced unusual leverage:

• A major adversary’s military capability degraded

• No U.S. combat troops engaged

• Alliance credibility reinforced

• Treaty-based order preserved

This is not altruism. It is asymmetric strategy.

Abandoning Ukraine would reverse those gains:

• signaling that borders are negotiable

• encouraging coercion elsewhere

• forcing future conflicts to be fought at higher cost

There is no scenario in which that is cheaper.

---

6. Why Authoritarian “Peace Deals” Fail Structurally

Authoritarian systems negotiate differently than democracies.

They tend to treat agreements as:

• tactical pauses

• pressure-management tools

• instruments to divide opponents

This is why “strongman deals” often produce:

• temporary quiet

• followed by renewed aggression

• under worse conditions

Peace is not the absence of fighting. It is the absence of incentive to fight again.

Rewarding conquest preserves the incentive.

---

7. The Domestic Consequences of Foreign Policy Shortcuts

There is a final risk that is often ignored.

When leaders normalize:

• bypassing institutions abroad

• outsourcing state authority to personal channels

• treating law as optional when inconvenient

They normalize the same behavior at home.

Foreign policy conducted outside constitutional structures does not stay foreign. It reshapes expectations of governance itself.

---

8. A Minimum Standard for Any Serious Peace Proposal

Any proposal claiming to end the war responsibly must meet five criteria:

1. Ukrainian consent without coercion

2. No legitimization of territorial conquest

3. Enforceable security guarantees

4. Reduction — not deferral — of future invasion incentives

5. Constitutional, accountable diplomatic process

Plans that fail these tests do not end wars. They schedule the next one.

---

Conclusion? Power Is Durable or It Isn’t

The belief that stability can be purchased by discarding rules has always been seductive — and always been wrong.

The international system does not collapse because leaders are cruel. It collapses when leaders misunderstand how power persists. Durable power comes from making aggression fail, not from bargaining with it.

If current proposals discredit themselves under scrutiny, it is not because they are controversial. It is because they are strategically incoherent — economically unsound, historically refuted, and structurally incapable of producing lasting peace.

History does not punish idealism.
It punishes short-term thinking disguised as realism.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Is Trump Playing 3D Chess, Chess, or Checkers on the World Stage?

Chess demands foresight, coherence, and an understanding of positional dynamics. Trump’s actions on the world stage indicate a persistent unfamiliarity with all three. Effective strategy begins with recognizing the structure of the board itself. Trump’s record suggests that he rarely perceives the board, let alone the strategic relationships that define it.

So, is everything Trump does wrong? No. Paradoxically, his hostility toward NATO helped galvanize and strengthen it, an outcome achieved despite his own dissatisfaction with the alliance and the outcome of his very own actions.

However...

Supporters often claim that Donald Trump is playing “3D chess” on the global stage. The idea is that while critics see chaos, Trump is supposedly executing a deeper, unseen strategy. That claim sounds clever, but when examined through the actual standards of modern statecraft, it does not hold up.

Real geopolitics is not improvisational theater. It is a discipline built on continuity, credibility, coalition management, and long-term consequence modeling. When those fundamentals collapse, what remains is not hidden genius. It is institutional damage.

This is why many analysts, diplomats, and allied governments increasingly interpret Trump’s behavior not as multidimensional strategy, but as something far closer to political checkers.

---

What Genuine Strategic Statecraft Requires

High-level strategy in foreign policy depends on several core pillars:

• Alliance stability and treaty reliability

• Predictable signaling to both allies and adversaries

• Second- and third-order consequence planning

• Coordination between military, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence institutions

• Multi-year or multi-decade planning horizons

Strategy is slow, layered, and disciplined. It is rarely flashy. It is built on consistency, not spectacle.

---

What Trump Actually Practices Instead

Trump’s approach to foreign policy consistently displays a different pattern:

• Transactional bilateral deals instead of alliance-centered diplomacy

• Public attacks on long-time allies

• Open admiration for authoritarian leaders

• Foreign policy conducted through social media theatrics

• Policy reversals that undermine long-term deterrence

• No stable doctrine beyond immediate leverage and attention dominance

This is not multidimensional strategy. It is personal branding fused to impulsive power projection.

---

Why the “3D Chess” Narrative Persists

The myth survives for three main reasons:

First, it acts as failure insulation. Any outcome, even damaging ones, can be reframed as misunderstood brilliance.

Second, it reinforces Trump’s cultivated identity as an unbeatable negotiator. The narrative protects the brand regardless of the results.

Third, it functions as propaganda. It turns visible disorder into supposed hidden mastery without needing evidence.

---

How Europe and U.S. Allies See It

From the perspective of NATO and European governments, Trump’s behavior does not project strength. It injects instability into deterrence systems that depend on clarity and reliability.

When alliance commitments become uncertain, adversaries test boundaries. That is not strategic dominance. That is degraded deterrence.

Instead of strengthening collective security, Trump’s conduct forces allies to prepare for U.S. unpredictability itself.

---

Why “Checkers” Is a More Accurate Metaphor

Checkers is a game of immediate captures. Chess is a game of long-term positional control. Trump’s behavior consistently reflects the former.

• Moves prioritize instant optics over future vulnerability

• Threats are made without defensive coverage

• Short-term attention beats long-term positioning

• Consequences are externalized to institutions and allies

This is not how durable international strategy is built. It is how leverage is burned down for short-term effect.

---

Conclusion

Trump claims strategic depth. What his behavior demonstrates is tactical impulsivity.

The “3D chess” framing functions as marketing, not analysis. It excuses disorder by labeling it genius after the fact. Meanwhile, the real costs show up in weakened alliances, degraded deterrence, and rising global instability.

On the world stage, statecraft remains a multi-layered discipline of patience and structure. What Trump practices instead looks far more like checkers, fast moves, loud captures, and little protection for what comes next.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Better Sooner Than Too Late: Why Bullies Like Putin or Trump Must Be Neutralized

It is often said that history does not repeat, but it rhymes. The phrase is usually credited to Mark Twain, though its exact origin is uncertain. Still, the wisdom rings true. Events may not copy themselves exactly, but the patterns come back in new forms, offering warnings to those willing to listen.

In the 1930s, Hitler tested Europe one step at a time. He met hesitation and delay, and each time he gained more ground. Appeasement was meant to preserve peace, but instead it gave him space to grow stronger. By the time the world realized the danger, the price of resistance had multiplied beyond measure.

Today, Vladimir Putin follows his own pattern of probing and pushing, destabilizing neighbors and daring the world to stop him. At home, figures like Donald Trump show how a leader who disregards rules and laws can corrode democracy from within. Both are bullies in different arenas. Both thrive when their abuses are tolerated. 

And both remind us that silence or delay is not safety, it is surrender. When despots and demagogues behave like spoiled children with the world’s most dangerous toys, silence is not safety. We must neutralize their tactics, raise the political and economic costs, and deny them the power to make aggression pay. 

Those steps should be taken by accountable national leaders working with allies, and by citizens of those nations within their nations, not by those narcissists who trade spectacle for statecraft. 

Insist on firmness that is principled, lawful, and collective, so the bully cohort across our nations and world learns that provocation never pays.

The Danger of Delay

Putting up with bullies always leads to more of the same. Each unchallenged act teaches them that their behavior works. They see hesitation as weakness, never as maturity. What looks like restraint to us looks like an invitation to them. Delay does not buy peace, it buys time for the aggressor.

Neutralization Over Tolerance

Neutralizing aggression does not require reckless escalation. It requires consistent, sharp, lawful responses every time.

• Intercept and escort intruding aircraft, and make the evidence public.

• Expose propaganda with facts before it takes root.

• Answer cyberattacks and hybrid operations with defenses and proportionate countermeasures.

• When civilians or allies are directly threatened, act firmly under clear rules of engagement.

The principle is simple. Every act of aggression must cost more than it gains.

Why This Matters

Democracies cannot afford to mirror the lawlessness of their challengers. But they also cannot afford to let violations slide. The path forward is principled firmness. Bullies are not stopped by words or patience. They are stopped when their tactics fail every single time.

The Choice Before Us

We face the same dilemma today that others faced in the 1930s. Do we delay and appease, or do we act early and firmly? Doing nothing may feel easier in the moment, but it stacks up danger for the future.

The stakes are high: national sovereignty, democratic freedom, and the credibility of institutions at home and abroad. Leaders must have the courage to act sooner rather than later. Citizens must demand it of them. Better sooner than too late.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT